5 ms·

The Vatican and their anti birth control stance should also receive a fair share of the blame. Matter of fact, I think the pope should be charged with crimes ag

by sakri 17y ago

The Vatican and their anti birth control stance should also receive a fair share of the blame. Matter of fact, I think the pope should be charged with crimes against humanity for this stance.

gaius 17y ago
Ermm, what the Church actually says is "no sex outside marriage". Blame the Church for many things, but the spread of STDs says more about your own prejudices than anything else.
- maurycy 17y ago
  Not quite. After 30s of googling: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7967173.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7967173.stm It said the Pope's recent comments that condoms exacerbated the problem of HIV/Aids were wildly inaccurate and could have devastating consequences. The Pope had said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    "abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use" Isn't that basically the same as "no sex outside marriage"?
    - maurycy 17y ago
      Not quite. It doesn't matter, though. Please focus on the first part: "condoms exacerbated the problem of HIV/AIDS". The statement is wildly untrue, and makes the Church guilty of STD's spread.
      - gaius 17y ago
        So people are ignoring the Church on abstinence, but obeying it on contraception? Doesn't really seem plausible, does it?
        edanm 17y ago
        "Doesn't really seem plausible, does it?" It doesn't, but I think this is what happens in practice.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Sad but true. A friend of mine is religious and believes in the no contraception / no sex before marriage rule. On a recent trip to Africa she returned and admitted to having sex with a local. Her main concern was not for health problems but moral ones: she had sinned for sex outside of marriage and was repentent etc. When I asked if she'd "at least used a condom" she looked horrified "oh no! I couldn't do that" The problem is that sex outside of marriage is a sin with reward; you get to have sex, that feels good. Condoms are not a necessary part of that act (I don't know of anyone who prefers them! :)) and so the sin is "easier to avoid". There is not necessarily a perceived reward for using contraception (at least at the time of the act). You can lose but not gain. etc.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        rauljara 17y ago
        No. Not all people will obey calls to abstinence and monogamy. Period. There has always been adultery and teenage pregnancy; there is no reason to think there ever won't be. In addition, no study of abstinence until marriage education has ever been shown to reduce teen pregnancy. However, condom use has been shown to slow the spread of std's. By spreading lies about a method which has been shown to be effective while simultaneously pushing a method which has never been shown to be effective, the church is helping to spread the epidemic. If they want to push abstinence only, fine, but actively discouraging something which can keep people safe by SPREADING LIES is unacceptable.
        dagw 17y ago
        Seems very plausible to me. Most religions don't require that you must follow all the rules, but that you do your best to follow as many as you can and feel really bad when you fail. Given that, why is it so odd that people follow the easy rules (not using a condom) but not the hard rules (abstinence).
  - Radix 17y ago
    The Catholic church condemns all birth control, including for married couples, if I understand correctly. This is why they hold some guilt. I don't see any problem with backing abstinence as the proper form for premarital birth control, denying it in all situations mean those who fail to maintain abstinence won't feel social pressure to use birth control, and, guessing, there will be a lower likelihood of easy access birth control. Church argument: Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp I don't follow the church's argument, but crimes against humanity? That's just silly. So why are yall down-voting him?
    - mseebach 17y ago
      > I don't see any problem with backing abstinence as the proper form for premarital birth control, denying it in all situations mean those who fail to maintain abstinence won't feel social pressure to use birth control, and, guessing, there will be a lower likelihood of easy access birth control. I'm not a catholic, but you have to try to see it from their perspective. What kind of moral leader are you, if you say "don't sin, but if you're going to sin anyway, here's the best way to do it"? To draw a parallel: Suicide is very very wrong. But doing it wrong will put you in a lot of pain and might handicap you - so we should make small pamphlets for teenagers saying "don't kill yourself - but here are some tips if you're going to anyway". For someone who's not opposed to premarital sex or contraception, it's an unreasonably far stretch to compare - but I'm not at all sure that's not pretty much how they feel about it.
      - joubert 17y ago
        But this dilemma stems from the original irrational statement that sex outside marriage is immoral.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    No amount of message board geekery is going to get you around the fact that a core tenet of the Catholic church is that sex is appropriate only in marriage.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      ... and only for reproduction. Unfortunately, the message could be "if you are really going to sin, at least sin in a way that doesn't endanger yours and your partner's life" not "do not sin and damn the condoms"
      - tptacek 17y ago
        If you want medical advice, go to a doctor.
        rbanffy 17y ago
        Unfortunately, far too many people take advice from the main priest of the Church of The Flying Zombie...
  - araneae 17y ago
    I believe that statement refers to the commandments. At least in Spanish, the commandment about adultery is translated to mean "no sex outside of marriage." That is interpreted by many South Americans at least to mean no pre-marital sex.
iaskwhy 17y ago
I always disliked this kind of thinking. Let me begin by saying I'm agnostic so I'm not actually church-biased. The roman catholic church has rules and nobody is forced to follow those rules. If some people like to think they are roman catholics then they should follow those rules which include not having sex unless you are procreating. Now you can say the church should evolve, become modern, and while that would be fair, it's also fair for the church to stand by their ideals. You can insist and say they have a fair share of responsability for those who follow them which should make them evolve faster but people need to start thinking for themselves and think about what's more important: being roman catholic or using a condom? I'd say there's only one way you comply to both: if you're married to someone HIV positive and want to procreate. If that's the case, you might want to think about your child which might carry HIV too. edit: At the end of my post I said "your child which will probably carry HIV" but apparently it's not a high probability as pointed by sounddust so I changed it to "might carry". Thanks, sounddust!
- sounddust 17y ago
  That's an interesting point of view: Should people be encouraged to choose between religion or reason, or should we encourage religion to adapt? I don't think the answer is clear; I'd guess that the most effective approach is a case-by-case basis (true, the Roman Catholic church is unlikely to bend anytime soon, but perhaps other religions are more willing to adapt). Others have the right to criticize religion just as much as they have the right to their beliefs, so I think that the focus should be on effectiveness rather than "rights" (which I think are well-preserved in both cases). One thing I want to point out: mother-to-infant transmission of HIV is around 2-8% with proper preventative treatment and 15-30% without, so I disagree that the child will "probably" carry HIV, although it is certainly a risk.
  - iaskwhy 17y ago
    It's a too complicated topic and that's why I stayed out of it. I try to believe reason is above everything else and when showed I'm wrong I just update my views on it. I'm not sure what should the church do but I know I'm fascinated by those who follow those rules. I'm not talking about those who follow it blindly but of those who really believe it. I edited the original post to reflect the right probability of a child carrying HIV from their parents, thanks!
ErrantX 17y ago
I am dead set against the bilge spewed by that organisation (personal opinion); but I'm not sure dropping the whole problem at their doorstep is quite right. Certainly an amount of HIV infections may come about due to Church teachings causing a lack of condom usage (for example). But that feels more like a side effect. If your coming from the aspect of negligence in them failing to address the problem of STD infection properly in their ideals then I agree that is poor form. But crimes against humanity? Bit far perhaps. (also, if you're talking about the misinformation spread r.e. condom failure that is certainly something we should take issue with)

by sakri 17y ago

The Vatican and their anti birth control stance should also receive a fair share of the blame. Matter of fact, I think the pope should be charged with crimes against humanity for this stance.

gaius 17y ago

Ermm, what the Church actually says is "no sex outside marriage". Blame the Church for many things, but the spread of STDs says more about your own prejudices than anything else.

maurycy 17y ago
Not quite. After 30s of googling: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7967173.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7967173.stm It said the Pope's recent comments that condoms exacerbated the problem of HIV/Aids were wildly inaccurate and could have devastating consequences. The Pope had said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use.
- Tichy 17y ago
  "abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use" Isn't that basically the same as "no sex outside marriage"?
  - maurycy 17y ago
    Not quite. It doesn't matter, though. Please focus on the first part: "condoms exacerbated the problem of HIV/AIDS". The statement is wildly untrue, and makes the Church guilty of STD's spread.
    - gaius 17y ago
      So people are ignoring the Church on abstinence, but obeying it on contraception? Doesn't really seem plausible, does it?
      - edanm 17y ago
        "Doesn't really seem plausible, does it?" It doesn't, but I think this is what happens in practice.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Sad but true. A friend of mine is religious and believes in the no contraception / no sex before marriage rule. On a recent trip to Africa she returned and admitted to having sex with a local. Her main concern was not for health problems but moral ones: she had sinned for sex outside of marriage and was repentent etc. When I asked if she'd "at least used a condom" she looked horrified "oh no! I couldn't do that" The problem is that sex outside of marriage is a sin with reward; you get to have sex, that feels good. Condoms are not a necessary part of that act (I don't know of anyone who prefers them! :)) and so the sin is "easier to avoid". There is not necessarily a perceived reward for using contraception (at least at the time of the act). You can lose but not gain. etc.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
      - rauljara 17y ago
        No. Not all people will obey calls to abstinence and monogamy. Period. There has always been adultery and teenage pregnancy; there is no reason to think there ever won't be. In addition, no study of abstinence until marriage education has ever been shown to reduce teen pregnancy. However, condom use has been shown to slow the spread of std's. By spreading lies about a method which has been shown to be effective while simultaneously pushing a method which has never been shown to be effective, the church is helping to spread the epidemic. If they want to push abstinence only, fine, but actively discouraging something which can keep people safe by SPREADING LIES is unacceptable.
      - dagw 17y ago
        Seems very plausible to me. Most religions don't require that you must follow all the rules, but that you do your best to follow as many as you can and feel really bad when you fail. Given that, why is it so odd that people follow the easy rules (not using a condom) but not the hard rules (abstinence).
- Radix 17y ago
  The Catholic church condemns all birth control, including for married couples, if I understand correctly. This is why they hold some guilt. I don't see any problem with backing abstinence as the proper form for premarital birth control, denying it in all situations mean those who fail to maintain abstinence won't feel social pressure to use birth control, and, guessing, there will be a lower likelihood of easy access birth control. Church argument: Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp I don't follow the church's argument, but crimes against humanity? That's just silly. So why are yall down-voting him?
  - mseebach 17y ago
    > I don't see any problem with backing abstinence as the proper form for premarital birth control, denying it in all situations mean those who fail to maintain abstinence won't feel social pressure to use birth control, and, guessing, there will be a lower likelihood of easy access birth control. I'm not a catholic, but you have to try to see it from their perspective. What kind of moral leader are you, if you say "don't sin, but if you're going to sin anyway, here's the best way to do it"? To draw a parallel: Suicide is very very wrong. But doing it wrong will put you in a lot of pain and might handicap you - so we should make small pamphlets for teenagers saying "don't kill yourself - but here are some tips if you're going to anyway". For someone who's not opposed to premarital sex or contraception, it's an unreasonably far stretch to compare - but I'm not at all sure that's not pretty much how they feel about it.
    - joubert 17y ago
      But this dilemma stems from the original irrational statement that sex outside marriage is immoral.
- tptacek 17y ago
  No amount of message board geekery is going to get you around the fact that a core tenet of the Catholic church is that sex is appropriate only in marriage.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    ... and only for reproduction. Unfortunately, the message could be "if you are really going to sin, at least sin in a way that doesn't endanger yours and your partner's life" not "do not sin and damn the condoms"
    - tptacek 17y ago
      If you want medical advice, go to a doctor.
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        Unfortunately, far too many people take advice from the main priest of the Church of The Flying Zombie...
- araneae 17y ago
  I believe that statement refers to the commandments. At least in Spanish, the commandment about adultery is translated to mean "no sex outside of marriage." That is interpreted by many South Americans at least to mean no pre-marital sex.

iaskwhy 17y ago

I always disliked this kind of thinking. Let me begin by saying I'm agnostic so I'm not actually church-biased. The roman catholic church has rules and nobody is forced to follow those rules. If some people like to think they are roman catholics then they should follow those rules which include not having sex unless you are procreating. Now you can say the church should evolve, become modern, and while that would be fair, it's also fair for the church to stand by their ideals. You can insist and say they have a fair share of responsability for those who follow them which should make them evolve faster but people need to start thinking for themselves and think about what's more important: being roman catholic or using a condom? I'd say there's only one way you comply to both: if you're married to someone HIV positive and want to procreate. If that's the case, you might want to think about your child which might carry HIV too. edit: At the end of my post I said "your child which will probably carry HIV" but apparently it's not a high probability as pointed by sounddust so I changed it to "might carry". Thanks, sounddust!

sounddust 17y ago
That's an interesting point of view: Should people be encouraged to choose between religion or reason, or should we encourage religion to adapt? I don't think the answer is clear; I'd guess that the most effective approach is a case-by-case basis (true, the Roman Catholic church is unlikely to bend anytime soon, but perhaps other religions are more willing to adapt). Others have the right to criticize religion just as much as they have the right to their beliefs, so I think that the focus should be on effectiveness rather than "rights" (which I think are well-preserved in both cases). One thing I want to point out: mother-to-infant transmission of HIV is around 2-8% with proper preventative treatment and 15-30% without, so I disagree that the child will "probably" carry HIV, although it is certainly a risk.
- iaskwhy 17y ago
  It's a too complicated topic and that's why I stayed out of it. I try to believe reason is above everything else and when showed I'm wrong I just update my views on it. I'm not sure what should the church do but I know I'm fascinated by those who follow those rules. I'm not talking about those who follow it blindly but of those who really believe it. I edited the original post to reflect the right probability of a child carrying HIV from their parents, thanks!

ErrantX 17y ago

I am dead set against the bilge spewed by that organisation (personal opinion); but I'm not sure dropping the whole problem at their doorstep is quite right. Certainly an amount of HIV infections may come about due to Church teachings causing a lack of condom usage (for example). But that feels more like a side effect. If your coming from the aspect of negligence in them failing to address the problem of STD infection properly in their ideals then I agree that is poor form. But crimes against humanity? Bit far perhaps. (also, if you're talking about the misinformation spread r.e. condom failure that is certainly something we should take issue with)